UK accused of 'racism' towards invaders from across the pond
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
More pictures
"Save the aliens!" is the cry – and an unusual one too. Safeguarding Britain's flora and fauna from the ravages of mankind and "non-native invader" species has become the largely unquestioned cause célèbre of a generation.
In a new book, however, a leading historian argues this "culturally-determined" idea of native and non-native species is fundamentally flawed, and calls attempts to preserve the genetic identity of British wildlife "quasi-racist". Professor Christopher Smout, Scotland's Historiographer Royal and the founder of the Institute for Environmental History at St Andrews University, said species needing conservation should receive it regardless of "ethnicity". Those which cause problems, such as native bracken or non-native giant hogweed, should be dealt with in the same way and classed as "pests".
"The preoccupation with alien species is comparatively recent and not something which worried scientists and ecologists 50 years ago," said Professor Smout, whose book, Exploring Environmental History, is published in May. "They were concerned with pests. In recent times, the emphasis has been on the fact these pests are aliens and it has tended to a blanket condemnation to all species not classed as natives."
One such unfortunate is the ruddy duck, an American species accidentally released from the Slimbridge Wetland Centre in Gloucestershire – described as the "birthplace of modern conservation" – in the 1950s. The population expanded to such an extent that the bird migrated to Europe and, in Spain, started breeding with the white-headed duck, threatening the latter's status as a distinct species. The RSPB persuaded the British Government to carry out a decade-long cull of ruddy ducks.
"Conservationists are up in arms because they fear the ducks will all get turned into some kind of mish-mash," said Professor Smout. "The conservationists would say 'We're doing this because it is endangering the genetic integrity of the white-headed duck'.
"I don't think that's a scientifically valid point of view. The concern with genetic integrity seems almost quasi-racist. Our attitude towards alien species is culturally determined and sometimes you end up with rather bizarre actions by scientists."
Another case in point is the sika deer from Asia. Scientists have warned breeding with native red deer in Scotland threatened the famous "Monarch of the Glen". Professor Smout dismisses it as "no big deal", adding: "If one species can successfully interbreed with another, it might assist its survival in evolutionary terms. If it is a failure, the hybrid will die out."
Andre Farrar, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, was outraged by the claim of "quasi-racism", saying the more extreme wing of the animal rights movement had suggested that conservationists who talked about alien species "are one step from Goebbels". "These are dedicated people who have given their lives to give beleaguered native fauna a chance."
Not welcome here: 'Alien' species
*Ruddy ducks were introduced from North America to Britain in the 1950s and their population grew rapidly. They have been repeatedly culled down to about 4,100 over-wintering birds to stop their migration to Spain, where interbreeding with white-headed ducks is threatening the latter's existence as a separate species.
*Reeves's pheasant is endangered, with just 2,000 left worldwide. It is native to China but there are a few wild escapees in Britain. According to the RSPB, they have never formed a sustainable population. Professor Smout argues that they should be considered for conservation projects here, despite their alien status.
*Sika deer were brought to the UK in 1860 from Asia. Scientists recently voiced concern that they are interbreeding with red deer, threatening the red deer's genetic identity.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
if we really do believe in human rights, so we should also accept animal rights and equality as a humanistic issue quite rightly.
Also remember, when the Amerindians tried to cull down the population of Ruddy Brits that were introduced 1620, they failed. Ditto Picts and Celts.
Perhaps we should import the Hispanic white-headed ducks to the UK illegally. (Well, the strategy seems to be working well in the US: both the Ruddy European and Hispanic communities are thriving there.)
Species such as rhodedendrons and grey squirrels are pests because they are alien to the British ecology and are actively bad for biodiversity as there are no natural "brakes" on their spread.
From his comments given here, it seems a little over-reaching to paint conservationists, who have a very good understanding of our island ecology, as some kind of zealous, British supremacist movement. After all, where is the shoah for sycamore trees?
What are they like to eat?
- the world has got biodiversity due to species evolving in relative isolation all over the world.
- if you mix up the species across the planet, you will have massively less biodiversity overall, as they have not evolved in the presence of each other, so generally there would be only one species winner for each ecological niche.
Almost every alien species that has been released in the UK has become a threat to some native UK wildlife.
There seems to be some kind of novelty about an alien species when it first escapes and a lack of willingness to eradicate. It is only when their populations get to enormous sizes is there any plan to do something, which then costs 10's of millions of pounds.
I can't think of any alien species in the UK which is endangered in its own native area, so eradication is the only justifiable option and should be done while there are only a handful in the environment, not when there are thousands.
"if you mix up the species across the planet, you will have massively less biodiversity overall"
No, biodiversity comes from variation within the gene pool of a species.
The inter-breeding justification for culling ruddy ducks is falacious. The smaller ruddy duck can only compete with the bigger white headed duck male when they are scarce, which happened because the spannish were shooting the wjite headed duck. Now the the W.H.D. is a protected species the numers are recovering and interbreeding is not the problem it was once percieved to be.
Furthermore the DEFRAs cull policy will never work. They can only eradicate the ruddy duck on large areas of water. The ruddy duck is found on open water all over the country. It just spreads back to the large lakes and reservoirs from the ponds after a cull .
Anyway, many of the birds on our British list were originally non native, The Little Owl for example. So why not the charming little Ruddy too. If you wanted to stop the Ruddy Duck the answer would have been to stop Peter Scott and the WWT messing around with things they didn't understand. They caused the problem in the first place and seem to be still part of it with their misguided racist advice.
Nobody is promoting one species over another what they are trying to do is limit yet another rapid change man has created. At one level a new species spreading by mans agency could be similar to a natural spread but the rate at which it can happen in a world of mass transport is not. Most of us are horrified to see seabirds killed in an oil spill so why is it Ok to allow rats to eat their chicks leading to the same extiction risk.
If they can inter-breed with fertile offspring they are NOT different species. It's like saying a Bull Dog and a Collie are a different species - or a black person and a yellow person are from different species.
Point 1: If ruddy ducks express freewill in having consensual sex with white headed-ducks, to produce offspring, then (i) they are not separate species: they are varieties of the same species (ii). by mixing these varieties you enhance the spread of genetic diversity within the SAME population - thus possibly making them more tolerant as a population to environmental fluctuations, etc.
Point 2: Extending this 'conservationist' principle to humans: when do these 'conservationists' plan to cull Black British people for having sex with White British people? Abhorrent, isn't it?
Conservationsists by definition do not understand nature as a process. They want to preserve it as they dictate it should be: to preserve it and put it in a museum. In the film Jurassic Park' the character Malcolm says "nature finds a way". No, not if you're a conservationist. To a conservationist, nature is an idealised garden, frozen in time and space. Their fundamental understanding of nature is wrong. They are not helped by ecologists. My Ecology lecturer once made it plain to me there was no such thing as an ecological niche, if it wasn't already filled in. Popycock. These idiots are giving degrees to people. The British ecosystem is depleted in Flora and Fauna thanks to 21 ice ages in the last 2.2 million years, caused by CO2 depletion. This process has been ongoing since the Cretaceous period depleted atmospheric CO2 at a massive rate (hence the white cliffs of Dover). Anyhow, thats another subject for another day...
You obviously haven't grasped the term, invasive as in any exotic animal that has a delictatous effect on the flora and fauna of the british Isles, I know that animals will by natural selection breed and push into new countries, but YOU have to look at how the nvasives got here in the first place mainly it happens by mans help in transporting them without mans help these animals would have never met and that is why we have species that have moved along the enviromental road and not converged basically placing both species in danger of genetic extingsion. If an animal has very little or no effect it can enrichen the species, but to have an animal exert pressure until the demise of the indigenous species is down right stupid as the flora and fauna also has a part to play in the realm of habitat.
So instead of saying there are no impacts I suggest you get in the field and have a look for yourself, But go with some one that knows about the subject.
I believe that you don't have any idea about the subject the you have written about, firstly the term invasive is used to generate an impact to flora and fauna of the United kingdom say Japenese Knotweed for example on flora nothing eats it and so it does very well, and then costs Millions of pounds a year to get rid of it, then there are terrapins which were dumped into the wild by the throw away society we live in, They are something I catch and clear out of ponds and waterways and when I undertake Feacal analysis everything from small inverts to Ducklings are found, I know of many ponds whose amphibiam populations have crashed due to these animals, so how you can sit there and condem people for trying to eradicate these foreigners I don't know.
Advice Go back to University pick up a basic book on ecology AND READ IT, That is why we have the GISD Global Invasive Species Database.
Mostly animals spread by means natural progression, but to say that white headed ducks and Ruddy ducks would breed naturally is obsurd, take a look at the Geographics, except by tail winds and a very strenuous flight they would never meet.
This sort of view is pure 19th century ill informed tripe.
People need to understand what a hybrid really is. There can be no such thing as a
human hybrid, we're all the same species people. Unless you find a population
of Homo erectus or Homo habilis you'll not be able to breed a human hybrid.
Genetic dilution is not as much the issue so much as genetic extinction, introduced
species that can out compete the native species will eventually displace the natives
to the point where they could conceivably become extinct. Not possible I hear you say?
Well check out Australia's mammal extinction record. Rabbits, cats, foxes and wild dogs
have rendered extinct with 29 species disappearing since colonisation.
What does it take to convince people of the impacts of introduced species?
Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience, by D. Theodoropoulos, Avvar Books, 2003.
For details, see: http://dtheo.org/InvasionBiology.ht
The book covers the biology of "invaders", their integration into the ecosystems of their new homelands, beneficial effects, the psychology of fear of "invaders" and it's origins in racist thought (and in National Socialist Germany), the pseudoscientific nature of "invasion biology", and the evolutionary and diversifying effects that are triggered by species moved by man. In all cases, including even the oceanic islands, man's movement of species has increased biological diversity.
By the way, the Rhododendron ponticum which concerns several of you was present in the British Isles in the last interglacial (and is therefore "native"), and expanding populations are caused by overgrazing, not any inherent "invasiveness" of the species. The gentleman who pointed out that they are "indicator species" is quite right - they are symptoms, not cause.
Another point that should be considered is the considerable funding of anti-invader propaganda is coming from the herbicide industry. Before crying that this "argument is favoured by developers and people who care not a damn about the environment", you might give this some thought...
I am delighted to see Prof. Smout contribute to critical examination of this field, and glad to see the critical thinking that is displayed by several of you who have commented here.
Best Wishes,
David Theodoropoulos
Las Sombras Biological Preserve
La Honda, California
http://dtheo.org